You are here: / / Father Estopped from Denying Paternity

Father Estopped from Denying Paternity

Before a party can be estopped from denying paternity the court must be convinced applying equitable estoppel is in the best interest of the child.  Here the child was eight years old, knew the respondent as her father, with his encouragement, and relied on respondent to be her father.  Family Court’s finding the respondent was equitably estopped from asserting nonpaternity was correct.  Commissioner of Social Services vs. Julio, J., No. 57, SSM 44, CtApp, 1-10-13

 

You might also like
NO EVIDENCE JURY COULD SEE ORANGE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT PANTS WORN BY DEFENDANT ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, DEFENDANT NOT DENIED A FAIR TRIAL.
THE STREET STOP OF DEFENDANT WAS INVALID UNDER BOTH THE US SUPREME COURT’S “HILL VS CALIFORNIA” “MISTAKEN ARREST” CRITERIA AND THE NYS “DEBOUR” STREET STOP CRITERIA; THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT AS HE FLED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION CANNOT ASSERT THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DEFENSE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE ACCIDENT INVOLVED A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION BUS AND OCCURRED IN NEW YORK CITY (CT APP). ​
DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 GIVES A COURT THE DISCRETION TO DISPENSE WITH AN ADULT ADOPTEE’S CONSENT TO ADOPTION; HERE PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO ADOPT MARION T., A 66-YEAR-OLD NON-VERBAL WOMAN WITH A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY (CT APP).
THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).
German Museum Proved It Had Superior Title to Ancient Assyrian Gold Tablet in Decedent’s Estate/Doctrine of Laches Did Not Apply
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE FOR “IMPAIRMENT” WHICH WAS APPLIED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IN A RECENT VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE; IT WAS NOT CLEAR THE “IMPAIRMENT” CHARGE IN THE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT “DRIVING WHILE ABILITY IMPAIRED BY DRUGS” CASE (CT APP).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Late Notice of Claim Allowed. Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No...